Re: [OAUTH-WG] Current Progress in use case document?

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 05 August 2013 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5E31F0C87 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b1i5+0-VqOFz for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232581F0C37 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r75GpkLS023781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:51:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.61]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id r75GpjNx003516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:51:45 -0500
Received: from [135.222.232.243] (USMUYN0L055118.mh.lucent.com [135.222.232.243]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id r75Gpi21015862; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:51:45 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <51FFD820.2050200@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:51:44 -0400
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
References: <OFE117D818.698E0F58-ON48257BBE.0034B640-48257BBE.00353DF2@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OFE117D818.698E0F58-ON48257BBE.0034B640-48257BBE.00353DF2@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050403050709040004060308"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9
Cc: oauth@ietf.org, "zachary.zeltsan@gmail.com" <zachary.zeltsan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Current Progress in use case document?
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:51:59 -0000

Zhou,

The correct addres for Zachary is on the (corrected) CC list.

My take on it is that the Use Cases document has been ready for approval 
for quite a while, and there were no concerns about misunderstandings. 
The cases are clearly delineated by their respective 1) descriptions, 2) 
pre-conditions, and 3) post-conditions.

I might try to to help, but I don't quite understand what "some diagram" 
means here and why it should be added.  Nor do I understand what your 
difficulty in discerning one use case from another is.   If you see 
something specifically wrong with what is there please point this out.

If you need a tutorial on Use Cases, please write to Zachary.

With thanks,

Igor


On 8/5/2013 5:40 AM, zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn wrote:
> Hi, all
>      The use case documemnt will not be updated?
>      For a reader it is very difficult to discern a use case from 
> another one.
>      Could some diagram be added? Could some explanation be added to 
> clarify why some cases cannot be supperted by oauth 2.0?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth